Justice Lecture: Moral Dilemmas and Theories

Introduction

• Funding for the program and course about Justice.
• Opening with the trolley car problem.

The Trolley Problem

1. Scenario 1: Driver's Dilemma
   • Trolley car with failed brakes is about to hit five workers.
   • Driver can steer to a side track, killing one worker instead of five.
   • Question: What should the driver do? Majority chose to steer to the side track.
   • Reason: Better to kill one person than five.
2. Scenario 2: Onlooker's Dilemma
   • Onlooker can push a fat man onto the tracks to stop the trolley, saving five workers but killing the man.
   • Majority chose not to push the fat man.
   • Reason: Active choice of pushing a person involves a higher moral breach than steering a course.
3. Further Discussion
   • Intrinsic quality of acts vs. consequences of actions.
   • Introducing moral reasoning: consequentialist vs. categorical.

Consequentialist vs. Categorical Moral Reasoning

• Consequentialist: Morality based on the outcomes or consequences (e.g., utilitarianism).
• Categorical: Certain actions are morally required or prohibited regardless of outcomes (e.g., Kant's philosophy).

Introducing Utilitarianism

1. Utilitarianism: Philosophy by Jeremy Bentham.
   • Principle: Maximize utility (pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering).
   • Slogan: "The greatest good for the greatest number."

Case Study: Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

1. Facts of the Case
   • Shipwrecked sailors: Dudley, Stephens, Brooks, and cabin boy Parker.
   • Eight days with no food or water.
   • Dudley suggested killing Parker (the weakest) to save the rest.
   • They killed Parker and were later rescued.
2. Legal and Moral Debate
   • Defense: Acted out of necessity; better one dies so three can survive.
   • Prosecution: Murder is murder.
3. Jury Poll: Majority found Dudley and Stephens guilty.
4. Arguments
   • Defense: Survival and necessity, potential greater benefit to society.
   • Prosecution: Moral accountability, mental state during starvation, categorical wrong of murder.
   • Consent Aspect: If Parker had given consent, would it change the moral judgment?
   • Lottery Proposal: Fair procedure might justify the act.
5. Moral and Ethical Questions Raised
   • Is it ever morally permissible to kill one to save others?
   • Does consent alter the morality of an act?
   • Importance of fair procedures in morally difficult situations.

Consequentialism and Its Challenges

1. Skepticism in Moral Reasoning
   • Doubts about resolving moral dilemmas.
   • Kant's response to skepticism: Restlessness of reason.
2. Personal and Political Risks of Philosophical Inquiry
   • Philosophy challenges conventional beliefs and can destabilize personal and political views.
   • Historical example: Socrates and the call to abandon philosophy.

Course Structure and Goals

• Reading major works: Aristotle, Locke, Kant, Mill, and others.
• Discussing contemporary political and legal issues.
• Risks and rewards of engaging in philosophical inquiry.
• Aim: To awaken the restlessness of reason and explore moral and political philosophy in-depth.

Next Steps

• Upcoming readings: Bentham and Mill's utilitarian philosophy.
• Examination of moral work by consent and fairness in procedures.
• Encouragement to engage in online discussions and resources available at www.justiceharvard.org.

Note: This lecture introduces major moral philosophies and prepares for deeper exploration of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.